Does he not realise that people will take him seriously, or not care? People will embrace this opinion as their own, now!
in the world according to “that bowtie boy so smart even the liberals on PBS gave him a show”:
I … may … vomit.
Nah. It would have made them martyrs.
And in your world, the difference between “agent” & “criminal” is merely & only the orders of a state? To claim that state power legitimizes an act by virtue of state power is less legal theory than lawless autocracy.
The Rainbow Warrior crew were going to sink a French warship? They were going to destroy equipment, damage something that belonged to another country, take lives?
No, they were not. They were going to embarrass the French, and publicise their views on nuclear tests in the Pacific.
Still comes down to covert action against a protest against nuclear tests. And it is still terrorism, and it took lives. Just because it was “state sponsored”, as we’ve found out in the years since, doesn’t make it any less of a degree than that. Not funny, HSHP. I’m a Kiwi wondering how you can get your jollies at the thought of things being blown up and people dying.
National interests != national security. :rolleyes:
The terrorists were Greenpeace. France was fighting the terrorists. New Zealand was the one harboring the terrorists.
Woah – broad definition of “terror” there, Unregistered Bull. How were they causing terror?
In some of the same manner that ALF or ELF does.
Sailing in international waters is not terrorism in any sense of the word.
Their intended actions were not that of sailing. They interfere causing danger. Their terrorists. I know that fellow enviromental extremists or animal rightist don’t care about such actions and/or agree with such actions. But others obviously care and/or disagree about those actions as France did in this case.
As zagloba just said – they intended sailing in international waters. Highlighting something they were protesting about. Not breaking into places, not causing damage, not taking lives.
Man oh man, I bet you have a royal fit whenever there are picketing protests in your neighbourhood …
Let’s see – the French felt that the crew would cause danger (to themselves as the crew on a ship near the tests?) and so, out of goodwill, they decided to prevent the danger by blowing up the ship, covertly, in a friendly country and then deny everything (surely they would have expected pats on the back for their quick-thinking in saving lives! Oh, wait, they didn’t save lives …) :rolleyes:
They didn’t announce their intention to sail into the middle of a secured nuclear test site?
They could have sunk it in open waters.
So okay, if anyone’s planning a protest within a few miles of Unregistered Bull, take note – he doesn’t like that, and he’ll call you a terrorist. Pays to know these things beforehand.
But it still would have been funny.
You do not kill someone and destroy private property outside of wartime for a stated intention. You board their unarmed vessel and arrest them when they violate the military zone, not before they commit a criminal act. The mining of the Rainbow Warrior and the concomitant destruction of life were acts of murder at best and state-backed terrorism at worst. I lean toward the latter.
If you think otherwise, you are an utter fool.
that’s not what they were intending on doing. It would be more like if you to trespass and physically stop, due to your presence, a secured an expensive, dangerous, and necessary military operation, then be prepared for being treated accordingly.
That has been a fairly SOP for terrorists now and prior to 9/11.
I’m sorry but,…wait, I’m not sorry. The main point here should be, If you don’t cause any shit, then there won’t be any shit.
Upon preview: Cool. Ogre thinks me a fool. Oh well. Life goes on…for those of us not stupid enough to be on that boat, that had proclaimed it’s intentions to go where it shouldn’t.